Both sides were meant to be the same, but the two dies were made separately. No machines. The coin was hammered, not cast. The flan was fairly round, probably warm when struck as the design is sharp. The design looks like an animal, possibly a salamander. I don't think it is a character. The sign right of the animal may be an Arabic 7 or 8 or something else.

Take the above and it is not ancient Indian. It's too round, too flat, too accomplished for that. It's also not modern. It's too thick and too uninformative for that. The animal would be a nono for strict moslims, but the character to its right looks islamic.

Here's a trick from archeology. If you don't know what it is, say it's religious or a toy. There are arguments against both. It's too expensive for a toy and the character and animal are at odds if it would be religious. But what if it were a religious toy? I could imagine that it could be used e.g. to divine answers from the gods. Maybe there were several animals. Maybe the character was not a character, but a symbol to indicate series, like spades and diamonds on European playing cards.

I could have said that I don't know. However, that's an invitation to speculate to me. At least, now you can think of rasons why I got it wrong

Peter

« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 08:26:01 AM by Figleaf »

Logged

An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

While i know very little about ancient Indian coins, i have seen lots of photographs. Having seen lots of photographs, i have developed an idea how ancient Indian coins should look like. Indians, since ancient times, have been known worldwide for creating aesthetically pleasing things, be it fabric, pottery or coins. So i doubt this thing could have been a coin, this thing is the creation of a designer of a primitive mint.